Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
defend today has been common to religions across time in many cultures and so we was don't want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating theology is rather than the other way round and it's not an argument from tradition. i'm not arguing because it's been this way it always should be. another thing is my argument can't be answered by appeals to the quality. we usually think that is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict the pool of people eligible to marry. it is true about fake marriage is a good income should be available on an equal basis and you get right to same-sex marriage from there. i think this debate is about a prior question. it's a debate about what marriage is and why the state is involved in the first place, which of course has implication for which unions get recognized as marriages. my proposal is the main mission of marriage and support for same-sex marriage is mistaken and a strong about what marriage is. another is he can't explain much less controversial features that we all agree tha
money for us with true religion apparel. full disclosure, i do own some of that via my daughter. go. charles: i was going to say they usually say people buy what they know. you don't have a pair? stuart: are you kidding? 128 bucks a pop. liz: you're tighter than two coats of paint. stuart: let's repeat that. tighter than two coats of paint? liz: yes. charles: we went to the mall this weekend. i could not believe the traffic in true religion. my son wanted a pair. i had forgotten how much they were and said yes. i made a mistake. they cost over $200. stuart: for a pair of jeans? charles: i said any other pair of jeans you get from here on out are levi's and they are going to cost $40 or less. they put themselves up for sale late last year and the stock popped when they did. i was shocked. i think they are turning around. they missed a few earnings reports. i think they are turning it around. i like the guidance. the street is starting to up their guidance here. the stock has a real clear shot to 30 from here. a break out would take it to 35. unless they have a few more hiccups, i lik
had been misused. history, like many religions, is multi vocal. that is, it is valuable. can be interpreted and deployed in ways that consciously, strategically or not simply suit the interests of the interpreter . so history can be useful. it can also be misused and even abused, but by scholars and practitioners. .. he had a sensationalist view of history. there was a novelty in the present moment. example includes the recent book "smuggler nation: how illicit trade made america." hijacking is a pretty sensational term to me. so how do peter andreas do it in this book? well, i think that he skillfully avoids in providing this present perspective. the other extreme that there is nothing new under the sun. i think this is most clear in the balance chapter, there is a subheading that is quite telling. so some things are new. for example, some of them do have greater global reach even if the extent of this reach has been exaggerated by the journalist and people of hollywood. it is indeed probably larger than it used to be historically. and there is also a relative share of illic
of that is that i am not arguing for morality, from religion, or from tradition. none of my arguments presuppose anything about the moral status of gay relationships. there are lots of valuable relationships that do not get recognized as marriage by anybody. that cannot be the decisive factor. they do not rely on any particular religious tradition. if they did, it would still leave something to be desired because something i will defend today has been common to religions across time and many cultures. we would still want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating those theologies rather than the other way around. and i am not arguing that because it has always been this way it always should be. another thing is that my argument cannot be answered by appeals to equality. we usually think that this is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict a pool of people elible for marriage. it is true that from that perspective it looks like marriage is a good thing and should be available on an equa basis. i think that this debate
study law or medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and at space, 4, form a common philosophy. -- flora, fauna, philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more. jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding this university is among t
religious liberty. he wants to define the first amendment, free exercise of religion clause to one hour a week. that's what he wants to do. he is not our friend. >> stephanie: wow. >> that's treason. >> stephanie: i was going to say that sounded a little treasony. the president of the united states is our enemy? the enemy? that's dangerous talk, isn't it? maybe the secret service needs to borrow the giant cartoon paw. [knock at door] >> isn't that the sound the cat made when he was out for the night? >> stephanie: right. >> then the cat will stay out for the night. [knock at door] >> stephanie: that concludes right-wing world. thank god. [ applause ] >> you didn't like that? >> stephanie: no. >> started to turn. >> stephanie: 17 minutes after the hour. you know, we talk about carbonite. how great was that letter i just read the other day. an item t. specialist, someone lost everything in her computer. they called the data recovery company. it will cost $2,000. what could she have done? carbonite for only $59 for the entire year? now everybody in the office has carbonite. you have all of
. >> we also had sister philip michael. she taught religion. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: okay. twenty-nine minutes after the hour. right back on the "stephanie miller show." ♪ alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] start with a groundbreaking car. good. then invent an entirely new way to buy one. no. no. no. yes! a website that works like a wedding registry. but for a car. first, you customize it. then let people sponsor the car's parts as gifts. dad sponsors the engine for your birthday. grandma sponsors the rims for graduation. the car gets funded. then you pick up your new dodge
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)